Replies

IAEA To Start Debate On Iran’s Nuclear Dossier Today

TEHRAN (PIN) -- The United Nations nuclear watchdog sits down today to examine progress in verifying Tehran's nuclear program. The IAEA is unlikely to pass a resolution declaring Iranian violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) during a board of governors meeting.

Last October, Iran offered to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to make a full declaration on all nuclear activities, giving a green light for tougher inspections and a suspension of work on the nuclear fuel cycle. Toughening its stance in advance of the IAEA meeting, Iran said it would reject international restrictions on its nuclear program and challenged the world to accept Tehran as a member of the "nuclear club."

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi on Saturday rejected further restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. "We won't accept any new obligations," Kharrazi said. "Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an irreversible path."

Iran has repeatedly insisted its nuclear program is geared toward generating electricity, not making weapons, but the United States alleges Tehran has a secret nuclear weapons program. The IAEA has wrestled with the dilemma for more than a year.

Iran has voluntarily suspended uranium enrichment and stopped building centrifuges in order to allay international concern about its nuclear program.

It has also allowed IAEA inspections of its nuclear facilities without prior notice, part of the additional protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that still must be approved by parliament.

Iran has confirmed possessing technology to extract uranium ore, processing it into a powder called yellow cake and then converting it into gas. The gas is then injected into centrifuges for low-grade enrichment that turns it into fuel for nuclear reactors.

In April, Iran said it had stopped building centrifuges. IAEA inspectors had found traces of highly enriched uranium at two sites, which Iranian officials have maintained was from contaminated imported materials. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said last month his agency had not found proof to date of a concrete link between Iran's nuclear activities and its military program, but "it was premature to make a judgment."

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=6/14/2004&Cat=2&Num=005

REJECTING BIG 3 DDEMANDS, IRAN SAYS IT WANTS BE IN THE “A CLUB”

Posted Sunday, June 13, 2004
TEHRAN, 13 June (IPS)

As the Islamic Republic ruling conservatives adopted for a new stand off with both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the European “Big 3” powers ahead of the Monday meeting of the IAEA Board of Directors, an informed Iranian journalist covering the meetings said “it is going to be business as usual”.

“Usually, it is the Americans that take the initiative. This time, and animated by the idea of bringing Washington in line with their policy of critical engagement with Iran, the three decided to come first in the one hand and stop the possibility of seeing Iran’s case transferred to the United Nations Security Council for decision”, the journalist told Iran Press Service on condition of anonymity.

Diplomats said the United States that pushes for harsher actions on Iran, was generally satisfied with the tone of the draft, but they would call for some kind of deadline for Tehran to come up with the missing information needed to prove or disprove the Islamic Republic's weapons ambitions.

In his Friday sermon, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's powerful second man in charge of the nation said the draft sponsored by France, Germany and the UK as well as the final statement of the G-8 summit reveals that the US and Europe have formed a partnership to deprive Iran of the benefits of nuclear technology to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

He also warned Britain, France and Germany that their latest resolution to be presented at the Monday meeting is “unacceptable” for Tehran and added that Iran had “never yield to pressures and bullying from any one and would not yield in the future”.

"If, indeed, the US and Europe have made the decision and continue in this path, they should know that it is a decision they will definitely regret", he warned, quoted by the official news agency IRNA said.

Hojjatoleslam Hasan Rohani, the influential Secretary of the Supreme Council on National Security (SCNS) and Iran’s top negotiator with the IAEA threatened that Iran might stop cooperating with the international nuclear watchdog and the three European nations in case the Resolution is adopted by the Governor.

Last October, Mr. Rohani, who is now sitting at the Majles, agreed with the foreign affairs ministers of Britain, France and Germany to sign the Additional Protocol to the Non Proliferation Treaty and suspend enriching uranium against helping Tehran to get advanced nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes.

The draft resolution prepared by Britain, France and Germany calls on Iran to stop “at once” its programmes for enriching uranium and allow IAEA inspectors full access to all Iranian nuclear sites and projects.

But senior Iranian tenors, including some members in the new Majles, or the Iranian Parliament dominated by the conservatives warned that a "strong reaction" was forthcoming if the IAEA rules against Iran and accused France, Germany and the U.K. of breaking promises to make Iran's access to advanced nuclear technology easier.

Iran also reacted strongly to the statement by the Group of Eight (G-8) strongest industrialised nations Wednesday urging the Islamic Republic to abandon all activities aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons and agreed on a one-year ban on the transfer of technology for uranium enrichment and reprocessing.

"The final statement by the IAEA board meeting will be the basis of future decisions by the new parliament", conservative lawmaker Manouchehr Mottaki said, adding that any decision by the IAEA Governors against Iran will prompt the "parliament's retaliation".

"The board decision will definitely affect the parliament's debate whether or not approve the additional protocol to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty", Mottaki told The Associated Press.

Hoseyn Sheikholeslam, another conservative deputy and a former Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister accused the U.K., France and Germany of violating an agreement with Iran to make it easy for Iran to obtain advanced nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

"Britain, France and Germany have violated the Tehran Declaration," said Sheikholeslam. "The Europeans and the world have to deal with us (Iran's new parliament) for the next four years. Breaking promises at the beginning of our work will have an adverse effect on mutual collaboration", AP quoted him as having added.

The “Big 3” drafted the resolution after it was found that contrary to its promises, not only Iran had continued enriching uranium unabated, but it had also put into service more advanced centrifuges and had approached European firm for the purchase of some 20.000 magnets used in centrifuges for producing high-grade uranium, an essential part of producing nuclear weapons.

The United States and other nations that insist Iran is after atomic bomb say such purchases are a proof of their arguments, that Iran is using nuclear-powered electricity projects as an attempt to cover up covert activities aimed at making nuclear weapons.

But Mr. Hoseyn Mousavian, the Secretary of the International Department of the SCNS rejected the information, saying “not Iran, but a contractor sought not 20.000 but 150 magnets only for a price of 300 US Dollars”.

According to the semi-independent Iranian Students News Agency ISNA, Mr. Mousavian, in a meeting last February in Brussels, it had been agreed that the EU will help closing Iranian nuclear file at the IAEA “providing that Iran’s cooperation with IAEA is complete and total and that nothing new would be discovered”.

“We will not accept any new obligation", Foreign Affairs Minister Kamal Kharrazi told a news conference in Tehran on Saturday. "If anyone asks us to give up Esfahan industries to change yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride gas or to give up heavy-water facilities in Arak, we cannot accept such an extra demand that is contradictory to our legal rights".

Yellowcake is processed uranium ore, mined near the central desert city of Yazd. Uranium hexafluoride gas is pumped into centrifuges that enrich uranium by spinning it.

"Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club", Kharrazi said. "This is an irreversible path", he added.

His comment followed that of Mr. Mehdi Kouchakzadeh, a staunch anti-American lawmaker urging the authorities to stop cooperation with IAEA and withdrawing from the NPT would be considered as options.

"If IAEA gives in to U.S. pressure, we will react strongly to defend Iran's national interests...as a lawmaker, I think Iran has to stop cooperation with IAEA and seriously consider withdrawing from NPT", he said.

Kouchakzadeh, a former member of the elite hard-line Revolutionary Guards, drew public attention when he chanted "Death to America" during the opening session of the parliament last month.

Dr. Qolamali Haddad-Adel, the new Speaker of the Majles approved his action, though unprecedented in the history of the Islamic Iranian parliament.

Hoseyn Shari’atmadari, a high-ranking intelligence officer specialising in interrogating political and intellectual dissidents appointed by Ayatollah Ali Khameneh'i as Editor of the hard line newspaper Keyhan reiterated Saturday that Iran should do away with U.N. interference and follow North Korea's lead.

"Finally the only logical way is to pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty", he wrote, repeating what he had suggested more than a year ago.

ENDS IRAN IAEA 13604

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/june/iran_iaea_13604.shtml

Analysis: Iran-EU nuclear deal at stake?

By Modher Amin
Published 6/13/2004 11:15 PM

TEHRAN, Iran, June 13 (UPI) -- A draft resolution to be considered Monday by the International Atomic Energy Agency, sponsored by France, Britain and Germany, coupled with a warning on Wednesday by the G8 states about Iran's nuclear intentions, seem to have put the country's deal with the European Union's "big three" to a crucial test.

The deal, struck last October during an unprecedented visit to Tehran by the foreign ministers of the three European countries, was seen as a success when Iran offered to make a full declaration of all nuclear activities, allow tougher inspections and suspend work on its sensitive nuclear fuel cycle.

While Iran maintains it has done its utmost to cooperate, the draft resolution drawn up by London, Paris and Berlin sharply criticizes Tehran for failing to answer questions about alleged nuclear weapons activities. The proposed resolution urges the clerical regime to clarify the origin of detected contamination by highly enriched uranium, disclose a program of centrifuges used to enrich uranium and suspend immediately and fully all enrichment-related activities.

At a press conference on Saturday, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi echoed other Iranian officials' complaints that the Europeans had failed to act on their commitments to his country.

Without elaborating on the nature of the commitments, he called the Europeans' initiative in proposing a resolution a "pressure" which is "unacceptable."

Kharrazi stopped short of threatening an end to Iran's dealings with the IAEA and pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but stressed that Tehran "will not accept any new commitments." He warned, at the same time, that "the failure of this project (Iran's nuclear program) is the failure of everyone."

"Success will be achieved only through tripartite cooperation between Iran, the Europeans and the (International Atomic Energy) Agency," Kharrazi said. "Cooperation is a two-way road. This cooperation will be bolstered when the sides keep their promises and pave the ground for further confidence-building."

In a joint declaration issued in October, the foreign ministers promised only that "Once international concerns, including those of the three Governments, are fully resolved, Iran could expect easier access to modern technology and supplies in a range of areas."

Reacting to the proposed resolution, a top Iranian security official, Hassan Rowhani, told Iranian state television Friday that Europe will have clearly reneged on its Tehran Declaration commitments if the IAEA does not make amendments to the draft. He warned that "this will affect Iranian officials' decisions" on the country's future cooperation with the agency.

"The draft reflects the views of the United States and some Western countries," said Rowhani, who is also Iran's chief nuclear negotiator.

Other Iranian officials have not kept silent on the issue in recent days, either.

Iran's former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani -- an influential figure within the Islamic regime-- accused the EU and the United States of trying to thwart Iran's nuclear program.

"It seems that, at the G8 summit, Europe and the United States formed a partnership to deprive Iran of the benefits of nuclear technology to develop nuclear energy," Rafsanjani told worshippers during Friday prayers in Tehran. "Both sides should know that Iran will not make any concessions on this legitimate national right and while we reject any nuclear projects for military purposes, we will stress having nuclear technology for peaceful purposes."

In another part of his sermon, Rafsanjani warned European governments and the United States that "they will definitely regret it if, indeed, they have made the decision and continue on this path."

"If the world cooperates with us on the peaceful use of nuclear technology, we will be able to resolve the issue. And if they try to bully us, then each will carry out his perceived duties," he further said, renewing a vow that Iran will never give up its right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Iran insists its nuclear ambitions are limited to generating electricity to meet the country's growing need for power. It further says it needs to produce 7,000-8,000 megawatts of nuclear-generated electricity by 2020, hence the need to build several nuclear power plants.

The United States and Israel, on the other hand, accuse Iran of using an atomic energy program as a cover for the development of nuclear weapons. Washington further argues it is hard to justify the production of this type of electricity in a country that ranks second and third in gas and oil reserves in the world, respectively.

Earlier, an influential conservative lawmaker warned that the parliament would not ratify the additional protocol to the NPT if the IAEA's board of governors politicized Iran's nuclear dossier.

"If the board takes a political stance and does not act in line with Iran's extensive cooperation with the IAEA, then, based on the country's national interests, the Majlis (Iranian parliament) will not ratify the additional protocol to the NPT," Ala'eddin Boroujerdi was quoted by the Iranian Mehr News Agency as saying.

Boroujerdi said Iran had the right to enrich uranium according to the NPT, and that Iran "should immediately resume the process under the strict supervision of IAEA inspectors."

Iran agreed to voluntarily suspend its uranium enrichment activities last October in a bid to allay the international community's concerns over its nuclear program.

In his comments on Saturday, Kharrazi asserted that Iran would not stop work on a heavy water reactor in the central city of Arak or at a uranium conversion facility in Isfahan.

"Closing down these two centers is an extra demand and we will not accept it because it runs against our legitimate rights," Kharrazi said, adding, "No one can decide for Iran to leave its peaceful nuclear program."

The comments came as many suspicions still hang over Iran's nuclear program.

A new report prepared by the IAEA in advance of the June 14 meeting of the watchdog's governors said the discovery of higher bomb-grade uranium traces than previously thought as well as an Iranian bid to buy several thousand key components, such as magnets for use in sophisticated P-2 centrifuges, were of concern.

The previous highest level made public was 36 percent, while some diplomats at the IAEA's headquarters in Vienna talked Thursday of a new 54 percent, according to media reports.

Uranium enriched to over 20 percent can be used to make an atomic bomb but most nuclear weapons are made with levels of over 80 percent enrichment.

Iran admitted to both findings, insisting, however, that the contamination came from imported equipment rather than from Iranian enrichment activities, and that the magnets were meant for other industrial uses.

The large purchase has cast doubt on whether the country's program is for research and development, as has already been stated by Iranian officials.

The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors is scheduled to again evaluate Iran's nuclear program in Vienna on Monday.

Tehran, however, is counting on the Europeans to block the U.S. plan to refer the case to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

"It seems Iran's dossier would not be closed completely in the next meeting of the IAEA's board of governors regarding (IAEA chief Mohammad) ElBaradei's report and the total attitude of the board of governors," Iranian member of parliament, Manouchehr Mottaki, said earlier last week, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency.

Commenting on U.S. opposition to Iran's use of nuclear technology, Mottaki said, "It is surprising that the United States, while supporting nuclear facilities and warheads for the Zionist regime in the Middle East, adopts such unwise policies against Iran's peaceful nuclear activities in defiance of international regulations."

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040612-052825-8442r

Why the world's eyes should be on Iran's nuclear programme

Telegraph - By Anton la Guardia
Jun 14, 2004

With Saddam Hussein gone, one could be forgiven for thinking that the world was finally done with the business of WMD and accusations of secret nuclear arsenals. But look at what is happening next door to Iraq, and the wranglings over Iran's nuclear programme are all too reminiscent of the 12 years of crisis that culminated with the war to topple Saddam.

Some of the personalities at the forefront of last year's Iraq saga - notably Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA) - have returned to centre-stage in the Iran nuclear affair. Mr ElBaradei's categorical assessment that Iraq's nuclear programme was dead and buried, and that intelligence on its revival was either faulty or fabricated, fell on deaf ears in Washington and London last year. In the case of Iran, however, Mr ElBaradei offers no such reassurance. The world should take note.

Reading the IAEA's reports on Iran in the past year, there are good reasons to fear that the mullahs, behind the guise of a civil nuclear power programme, are secretly trying to build an atomic bomb or at least develop a "just in time" capability to build one at short notice.

A nuclear Iran would precipitate a Middle East arms race that could prompt Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to secure their own nukes. Israel is unlikely to sit idly by while Iran arms itself with atomic weapons and long-range missiles.

As the IAEA's governors meet in Vienna this week to decide how to deal with Iran's latest evasions, Mr ElBaradei has told the Telegraph that Teheran keeps "changing its story". Despite good progress, the IAEA chief said inspections "cannot go on forever". Sound familiar?

By President George W Bush's own doctrine of the "axis of evil" - which asserts that the greatest danger to the world is posed by states developing WMD and supporting international terrorists - the first candidate for American "pre-emptive action" should have been Iran, not Iraq.

There is no doubt that Iran's nuclear facilities are much more advanced than Iraq's were last year. According to the IAEA, Iran lied systematically for 18 years. It secretly mastered the most sensitive techniques of enriching uranium and reprocessing plutonium - either of which provides a route to nuclear weapons.

It has bought equipment from the same "nuclear supermarket", operated by the Pakistani scientist AQ Khan, that provided uranium enrichment centrifuges for the Libyan and North Korean atomic weapons programmes.

There is also a much stronger terrorist connection to Iran than to Iraq.

Iran sponsors Palestinian extremist groups, as well as Lebanon's Hizbollah movement. Western intelligence agencies believe that at least some parts of the regime are harbouring some of Osama bin Laden's senior lieutenants, although Iran says al-Qa'eda figures that slipped into the country are all "under arrest".

Had America and Britain had even half of this evidence to pin on Saddam Hussein, they would have had no problem securing that elusive second United Nations resolution authorising war.

So will America go to war with Iran? Washington has not ruled out using force, and the idea of effecting "regime change" in Iran is attractive to many in Washington.

But the reality is that for the coming six to 12 months, President Bush has his hands full with fighting the insurgency in Iraq and overseeing the country's political transition. He does not want to stand for election in November as a warmonger. Having failed to find WMD in Iraq, Mr Bush will find it harder to argue for military action to stop Iran's nuclear programme.

For the moment, the Iranian question is being handled by diplomacy at the IAEA headquarters in Vienna.

In contrast with the bitter rows over Iraq, the "Big Three" of the European Union - Britain, France and Germany - have joined forces to exert pressure on Iran. Acting as the "good cop" to America's "bad cop", they have achieved some important successes - such as convincing Iran to agree to more intrusive inspections, suspend "temporarily" uranium enrichment and reveal at least some of its nuclear secrets. But it is not enough.

America has long demanded that Iran be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. The Europeans would rather use the threat of referral to prod Iran along the road of co-operation. They believe that by maintaining international "consensus", the mullahs can be boxed in ever tighter - to the point where either they decide that pursuing a nuclear weapons option is too costly or the Iranians commit a breach so egregious that it will be easier to rally support for punitive action.

"Iran is a medium-term problem," said a senior British official. But this game of "strategic patience" rests on a key assumption: that Iran is still some years away from having an atomic bomb and that the nuclear programme is effectively frozen by the current inspections.

What if Iran has a secret enrichment programme that the IAEA has yet to detect? America, or Israel, could try to bomb Iran's nuclear infrastructure - assuming they know the location of any secret facilities.

Military action would be extremely risky. It could destabilise an already precarious situation in the Middle East, especially in Iraq. It could deepen the war on terrorism, or suck America into an all-out war with Iran. It need not come to military action. The Europeans can do more to back up their tough words with credible threats of action. They should draw up a menu of EU sanctions that could be phased in if Iran does not comply with the IAEA by, say, September.

Iran also needs incentives if it is to give up the option of a deterrent against its many potential foes. If Teheran gives up its nuclear weapons aspirations permanently and submits to rigid international controls, it should be assured of technical assistance for developing nuclear power to generate electricity. Teheran could also be given a guarantee that it will not be attacked by the US.

America is ready to give such a security assurance to North Korea, and is negotiating with Pyongyang despite its open repudiation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There is good reason for America to begin talking to Iran. It is now the most important regional power in the Gulf. By deploying troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, America has become Iran's close neighbour - and hostile neighbours can make life hell.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_6600.shtml

Iran Ordered to Dispel Nuke Doubts 'In Months'

June 14, 2004
Reuters
Louis Charbonneau and Mark Trevelyan

VIENNA -- Iran is not fully cooperating with U.N. inspectors and must provide full answers within months on the extent of its nuclear programme, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency says.

Mohamed ElBaradei said the process of clarifying unresolved issues -- particularly over Iran's uranium enrichment activities -- could not be allowed to drag on for ever.

"It is essential for the integrity and credibility of the inspection process that we are able to bring these issues to a close within the next few months, and provide the international community with the assurances it urgently seeks regarding Iran's nuclear activities," he told the IAEA's board of governors on Monday.

The United States has long accused Iran of trying to build a nuclear weapon under cover of a civilian atomic energy programme. Tehran denies this, insisting it is only interested in generating electricity.

Diplomats said the United States would be pushing at the IAEA board meeting in Vienna, expected to last at least several days, for the agency to set Iran a deadline to cooperate fully.

ElBaradei said any deadline would be a matter for the member states to decide, but his comments made clear that Iran had to stop delaying and changing its story.

"We still have a central issue, and that is whether Iran has declared all its (uranium) enrichment activities," ElBaradei said, demanding "accelerated and proactive cooperation".

He highlighted concerns over the detection of traces of low-enriched and highly-enriched uranium at sites in Iran, and over Tehran's work with advanced P2 centrifuges.

These are used in the process of enriching, or purifying, uranium for use in an atomic reactor or in a nuclear weapon.

Information provided by Tehran on its P2 programme had been "changing and at times contradictory", ElBaradei said.

IRAN TO REJECT 'EXTREME DEMANDS'

Iran wants the IAEA to give it credit for the information it has disclosed to date, and has said failure to give it due recognition will affect future cooperation.

Iran's senior delegate Hossein Mousavian told reporters his country was providing "full cooperation", supplying all the information requested, and narrowing down the range of outstanding issues.

In Tehran, newly elected hardline lawmakers threatened not to ratify a U.N. protocol allowing snap nuclear inspections, which Iran signed last year and has so far been implementing.

"If Western governments impose extreme demands, the parliament will not sign the protocol," parliamentarian Mohammad Reza Tajeddini said in a newspaper article.

Delegates at the Vienna meeting will consider a joint draft resolution from France, Germany and Britain that "deplores" Iran's lack of full cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog. But diplomats said Washington wanted to go further.

"The Americans want a deadline," a diplomat from one of the 35 nations on the IAEA board told Reuters. "A deadline would be to keep the pressure on Iran."

Another diplomat said a deadline could be used to force Iran to finally keep some of the promises it made to the Europeans in October 2003, when Tehran agreed to suspend uranium enrichment activities in exchange for peaceful atomic technology.

Washington would also like a "trigger mechanism" that would call for the board to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions if its cooperation remains sluggish.

U.S. ambassador Kenneth Brill, commenting on ElBaradei's remarks, said: "It was a firm message that Iran has to do much better than it has been doing."

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=529233&section=news

Democracy and Morality

June 14, 2004
VOA News
Voice of America Editorials

The following is an editorial reflecting the views of the United States Government:

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said recently that “liberal democracy. . .is devoid of morality” and is “the source of all human torment and suffering.” Around the world, hundreds of millions of people disagree strongly with this characterization of democracy -- including millions of Iranians. They are more inclined to the view of America’s former President Ronald Reagan, who died this month. President Reagan referred to democracy as “the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.
”
Throughout his presidency, Mr. Reagan emphasized the universal right to liberty and democracy, and the need for, in his words, “free people. . .not only to remain so, but to help others gain their freedom.” He played a pivotal role in the collapse of Communism and the end of the Cold War. In a proclamation, President George W. Bush said that “through his courage and determination, [Ronald Reagan] enhanced America's security and advanced the spread of peace, liberty, and democracy to millions of people who had lived in darkness and oppression.”

Supporting the spread of democracy is also crucial today, says President Bush. The global war on terrorism “resembles the great clashes of the last century”:

“Between those who put their trust in tyrants, and those who put their trust in liberty, our goal, the goal of this generation, is the same: We will secure our nation and defend the peace through the forward march of freedom.”

Since September 11th, 2001, Mr. Bush says, terrorist violence has been seen in an arc stretching around the world. But the “center of the conflict. . .is the broader Middle East”:

“If that region is abandoned to dictators and terrorists, it will be a constant source of violence and alarm. . . . If that region grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorist movement will lose its sponsors, lose its recruits, and lose the festering grievances that keep terrorists in business.”

Defeating terrorism and supporting the spread of democracy in the Middle East require perseverance. But says President Bush, “our confidence comes from one unshakeable belief: We believe, in Ronald Reagan's words, that 'the future belongs to the free.'”

http://www.voanews.com/Editorials/article.cfm?objectID=886FA0E5-A9CD-4DF2-AA41FC92A1317145&title=6%2F14%2F04%20%2D%20DEMOCRACY%20AND%20MORALITY

Iran defiant but UN agency increasingly united over Tehran nuclear programme

VIENNA : Iran was defiant as the UN atomic energy agency prepared to meet but the hardline United States and more conciliatory Europe were drawing closer to insist Tehran dispel suspicions it is secretly developing nuclear weapons, diplomats said.

Even non-aligned nations sympathetic to Iran seemed ready to sign on to a draft resolution Europe's big three -- Britain, France and Germany -- are to present when the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) 35-nation board of governors opens what could be a week-long meeting in Vienna.

The resolution raps Iran for hiding sensitive nuclear activities but also presses for continued cooperation with Tehran.

Iran is preparing itself for a souring in ties with the IAEA as Tehran refuses to renounce its right to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel, Seyed Hossein Mussavian, a member of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told the Iranian student news agency ISNA Sunday.

"We are entering into a second phase which is the challenge posed by enrichment," Mussavian said, adding that this was difficult since "the Americans and the Europeans are on the same side".

"The Europeans are saying that in order to be sure that nuclear fuel is not used to produce nuclear weapons, Iran must renounce enrichment.

"But Iran considers enrichment to be an absolute right in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Iran is not ready to renounce this," Mussavian said.

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) can be used as nuclear fuel but also to make a nuclear bomb.

Tehran has agreed to suspend enrichment as a confidence-building measure but has insisted the suspension is only temporary and continued to work on other key parts of the sensitive nuclear fuel cycle.

Mussavian said the Euro-3 draft resolution signifies "that the Europeans, the IAEA and the Americans have a tacit agreement to keep the dossier at the top of the agenda so that the suspension of enrichment is longer."

He demanded it be amended, and Iranian diplomats were lobbying for this in Vienna.

"Everyone realizes what's at stake," a diplomat close to talks on the resolution told AFP about the need to determine whether Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program, as the United States claims, or developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, as Tehran says.

The diplomat said "no one questions the work of the agency" in finding omissions and discrepancies in Iran's reporting on its atomic activities.

And no one, except Iran, thinks the Iranian issue can be decided this June, the diplomat said, as the investigation is far from being completed.

The board meeting will also review Libya, with the IAEA vowing to persist in investigating Tripoli's now abandoned nuclear weapons program, as much to discover new facts about Libya as about the international smuggling network that supplied it, as well as Iran.

A tough Washington-inspired IAEA board resolution in March had condemned Iran for omitting to report its work into sophisticated P-2 centrifuges which can enrich uranium to bomb-grade levels.

But it drew protests from Iran that included delaying crucial agency investigations, a delay that makes it difficult for the IAEA to draw conclusions this June.

The United States looks ready to sign on this time to the Euro-3 draft resolution as it feels the tough language is "moving towards where the United States wants to be."

The United States wants to cut off cooperation with Iran and take it to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions but Washington does not have support at the IAEA for its hardline stance.

Diplomats said however that even the EU-3 were getting impatient with Iran, as the IAEA has been investigating the Iranian program since February 2003 with Iran consistently failing to deliver on promises for full disclosure.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/89897/1/.html

Trouble from Tehran

June 14, 2004
National Review Online
Michael Ledeen

Iran is making trouble, and finessing it is a dangerous strategy.

Abu Musab al Zarkawi, born Ahmad al Khalayla in Jordan, is the current deus ex machina of the terror war against the Coalition in Iraq. He is credited with numerous assassinations — including that of an American official, Thomas Foley, in Amman — and suicide bombings, along with the spectacular but little-reported attempt to launch a chemical attack against American targets in Jordan. Secretary of State Colin Powell named him on February 3, 2003, in his speech to the United Nations. Powell reported that Zarkawi had been sighted in Baghdad, where one of his legs had been amputated due to injuries sustained in Afghanistan.

Two months earlier, I had written about Zarkawi on the basis of German and Italian intelligence documents, presented by the prosecution in court cases against members of his European network. At that time, I noted that these documents identified Iran as the base of Zarkawi's operations. Powell was making a case against Iraq, and understandably omitted the Iranian connection, but the evidence of the Iranian matrix has just been reinforced in a book by Stefan Dambruoso (and co-authored by Guido Olimpio, a well-known journalist at Corriere della Sera), one of the Italian judicial officers charged with investigating terrorist activities in Milan. The book is entitled Milan-Baghdad, and excerpts dealing with Zarkawi appear in the current edition of Panorama , the leading Italian weekly newsmagazine.

Dambruoso flatly confirms what I wrote in December 2002: "Our investigations permit us to establish that the country of the Ayatollahs is the preferred springboard for militants headed for Iraq." Dambruoso lays it out in some detail. Zarkawi had already organized groups of fighters before the liberation of Iraq, and they operate alongside the remnants of Saddam's killers. The European network is used to recruit new bodies for the jihad in Iraq, and they enter from Iran in groups of three to five, with phony passports and usually pretending to be businessmen (or, I can add, journalists). They rent or buy small apartments in Baghdad, Tikrit, and Ramadi, where they organize larger cells, and then move into the battle area. Zarkawi himself entered Iraq by this method, along with one of the leading ideologues of the jihad, Abu Masaab (a Syrian).

Dambruoso seems to believe that the relationship between Zarkawi and Osama bin Laden is ambiguous, having seen some evidence (primarily the famous letter captured by U.S. special forces late last year) that Zarkawi was unhappy about the lack of support from al Qaeda. But whatever their tactical and personal disagreements (and these can be feigned), they share a common strategy for Iraq: kill members of the Coalition and any Iraqi who cooperates, and provoke internal conflicts among the various ethnic and religious communities. That tracks with my own analysis, which is that we are dealing with several different groups, supported by the various terror masters in Tehran, Damascus, and Riadh, in a joint operation within the overall matrix of Hezbollah — which of course means Iran.

I think Iran's diabolical hand can also be seen in the evolution of the image of Zarkawi. As Dambruoso points out in his book, the figure of Zarkawi has become more glorious, and he is not only a fighter but a preacher, who, like Osama, posts sermons on jihadist blogs.

Dambruoso explicitly refers to American intelligence sources for some of this information, including the movements from Iran to Iraq. Yet as recently as Saturday, June 12, Robin Wright of the Washington Post was loyally transmitting messages from unnamed "intelligence sources" claiming that Iran was not causing trouble in Iraq, and presenting the usual disinformation about a regime said to be internally divided and strategically paralyzed.

That sort of thing makes one wonder whether anyone at the CIA takes time to read the newspapers, or whether they rely entirely on classified cables from blind men "in the field." Had they read the newspapers they would have seen the mullahs calling for a new wave of suicide terrorism against us in Iraq, and even the remarkable spectacle of a formal signup sheet for those who want to blow themselves up (it thoughtfully gives the volunteer a choice of becoming a martyr in Iraq, Israel, or elsewhere).

I suppose this doesn't constitute troublemaking, huh?

Well, how about the news from Agence France Press on June 7 that Ukrainian troops in eastern Iraq arrested "about 40 Iranians trying to enter the country illegally...with assault rifles, Kalashnikovs, hunting guns and ammunition..."

I suppose the CIA thinks the Iranians were members of a peace-loving gun club.

Well, then, how about the report from IDF Chief of Staff Yaalon to the Israeli Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on May 18, which dealt with massive arms smuggling operation from Egypt to Gaza? Yaalon said that most of the operation was "almost entirely financed by Iran and being conducted via Palestinian groups in Damascus and Hizbullah in Lebanon. He said weapons are also coming from Saudi Arabia and Africa."

We are inundated from all sides with evidence that should drive our strategy in the Middle East. The war in Iraq is part of a broader struggle, and we will not be able to succeed there unless we also defeat the terror masters who are funding, arming, training, and directing the terror war in Iraq. But instead of going after the Iranian regime by supporting a mass movement to democratize the country, our leaders tell pliant journalists that the Iranians aren't causing trouble, and the real danger comes from the possibility that Ahmad Chalabi leaked some information to the mullahs.

Did no journalist think to ask an anonymous source the obvious question: If Iran's not a problem, why are you so upset about the leak? And if Iran is a problem, why don't we have an Iran policy after four years of discussion? Is there a national-security process or not?

The Bush administration has clearly decided to try to "manage" Iraq and "finesse" Iran, hoping to muddle through until the election and then, if victorious, consider its options in the broader theater. The president and his top advisers evidently want to avoid "new adventures" between now and November.

But this is a very dangerous strategy, because it leaves the initiative, in Iraq and elsewhere, entirely in the hands of people like Zarkawi and his longtime Iranian sponsors. Indeed, it seems to me that doing nothing is an open invitation to "new adventures" in the Middle East, in Europe, and in the United States.

You don't need classified information to see this; it's right in front of our noses. Yet we refuse to see it. This is what intelligence failures are really about: denial of the most obvious facts about the world. And it's what policy failures are about as well: refusal to take the obvious steps to protect our citizens, our allies, and our national interests.

We buried Ronald Reagan. Let's hope we haven't buried American courage along with him.

Faster. Please?

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200406140945.asp